RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens

[Rhiessan71]

Calder is a minor accomplishment, often given to a novelty. You yourself downplayed it when talking about Makarov. It's a well established fact that voters did not like Euro defensemen.

Hahaha yeah you downplay it now eh but the reality is that you screamed Canadian bias when Lidstrom didn't win the Calder...until it was pointed out that Bure won it.
Ever read the story about the little boy who cried wolf?
If not, you should because everytime I read yet another one of your "Canadian bias" posts, all I hear is Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

Even Fetisov is often ranked above Bourque. In the second half of his career Bourque was far worse than Lidstrom when it mattered, in playoffs. Hell, Fetisov did more for his Wings in playoffs.

Bolded...WHO, WHEN, WHERE??? By you in one of your grossly Russian biased lists? Ooookkk...

Lidstrom scored a goal in the Finals in OG. Bourque missed a shootout.

Yeah, that loss was on Bourque eh?
Bourque who should have never been a shooter in the first place with who Crawford had on the bench (Gretzky!!!).
Nothing to do with a prime Hasek in the opposing net either right?

 

[Sentinel]

By non-Canadians, of course. Oh, and Canadians too. The V poster quoted Canadian press.

I don't care if he shouldn't've been in that shootout. He was and he missed. His post 90 playoff record has nothing on Lidstrom. Who was a better defenseman. Keep skating around this all you want.

 

[Rhiessan71]

by non-canadians, of course. Oh, and canadians too. The v poster quoted canadian press.

I don't care if he shouldn't've been in that shootout. He was and he missed. his post 90 playoff record has nothing on lidstrom. who was a better defenseman. Keep skating around this all you want.

Prove it!!!

 

[Killion]

... alrighty then..... deep breath guys.......... take it easy.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Oh is it now?
Or is it only subjective when it doesn't fit your narrative?
I love it, I mean I really do.
Lidstrom's most overwhelming and most lauded attribute is his defensive play, yet THE second there is hard evidence that Bourque was even more effective at keeping the puck out of his own net than Lidstrom was, it's subjective?
JOKE!!!

In Football, 9 times out of 10 when a team only has to have their defense on the field for a 1/3 of the game as opposed to half the game. that team is going to win more games and have less points scored against them.
Bourque's puck control and possession game worked exactly the same way and why he WAS more effective over-all at preventing goals.
Whine about it, scream about it, deny it...I don't give a ****, those are the SUPPORTED facts!



Ineffective how? Because he didn't produce as much offense (still more than Lidstrom though) but still played a sound defensive game?
Show me how Bourque was less effective and while you're at it, under the exact same metric, show me how Lidstrom was more effective.
Show me the GF/60 and GA/60 in the playoffs for both players to prove it!
Go!

No, why don't you show me.

I've already proven that Bourque was more of an underachiever than Lidstrom. The PPG comparison a few pages back.

Please prove to me how Bourque WASNT a playoff disappointment outside of three seasons?

go.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Prove it!!!

Are you serious, man?

There is not one noteworthy Bourque postseason accomplishment from the 91 CF all the way up to the 1999 ECSF.

Maybe his 1994 series against the Habs or the 99 Canes series. Both Opening round.

Whoop-de-doo.

1999 Sabres series: -2 in last five games of series

1998 Caps series: -2 in six games

1996 panthers series: - 4 in five games.

First two games of the devils 95 series: -6 (-5 for all five games)

Last four games of Devils 94 series: -7

Four games of 93 Sabres series: -2

Last seven games of 92 postseason: -10

Last four games of 91 CF: -5


Someone explain to me why Bourque's statistics were so different from regular season to postseason in the aforementioned years.?

 

[Rhiessan71]

No, why don't you show me.

I've already proven that Bourque was more of an underachiever than Lidstrom. The PPG comparison a few pages back.

Please prove to me how Bourque WASNT a playoff disappointment outside of three seasons?

go.

Sorry but you didnt. All you showed was that Bourque's offense dropped off a little bit more in the POs than Lidstrom's did.
BUT it was still noticeably higher.
Where did you show that Lidstrom's overall play and defence was better?
Where are those hard numbers like I provided?
o where, that's where!

I have backed up everything I have said with facts and stats. You have done none of that. All you have attempted to provide are opinion loosely based on what you think certain stats mean.

 

[Hardyvan123]

... alrighty then..... deep breath guys.......... take it easy.

In related news the sun rises in the east eh?

That being said there is very little separating Bourque and Lidstrom and the depth some guys try to paint the picture otherwise is dumbfounding at times.

One thing that is pretty obvious is that both are on an elite tier career wise compared to Coffey and Stevens who are both elite players in their own way.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I've never seen Fetisov ranked ahead of Bourque on any list ever (and I've got him in my top eight so it's not anti-Euro bias - Lidstrom at fourth too).

To say Fetisov was better is borderline asinine.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I've never seen Fetisov ranked ahead of Bourque on any list ever (and I've got him in my top eight so it's not anti-Euro bias - Lidstrom at fourth too).

To say Fetisov was better is borderline asinine.

Fetisov is in my top-10 as well and I tend to have Salming ranked higher than most but hey, I'm just a Canadian bigot

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In one of the many past incarnations of this thread, someone posted newspaper articles from the late 80s about how opposing coaches would game plan to stop Bourque's ability to bring the puck up ice and saw that as the key to stopping Boston's offense.

I've wondered about Bourque's playoff performances in Boston too, but its an absolute fact of hockey that if the opposition focuses on shutting a certain player down, it becomes tougher for him to score

 

[Dark Shadows]

In one of the many past incarnations of this thread, someone posted newspaper articles from the late 80s about how opposing coaches would game plan to stop Bourque's ability to bring the puck up ice and saw that as the key to stopping Boston's offense.

I've wondered about Bourque's playoff performances in Boston too, but its an absolute fact of hockey that if the opposition focuses on shutting a certain player down, it becomes tougher for him to score

Probably me. It was a simple fact of life for Ray Bourque. Opposing coaches devised plans to dump the puck in his corner, forecheck on him hard so he has to pass the puck to his usually inept puck moving partner, or a forward, nobody of whom was as good at moving the puck up ice. Then they would backcheck on him like he was a forward, trying their damnedest not to let him get into the play.

He was the crucial piece to the Bruins offense, and coaches usually focused completely on him.

It was a different story in Detroit. Lidstrom could pass the puck to several people very capable of moving the puck up ice. And backchecking on Lidstrom as if he was a forward just let Yzerman, Fedorov, etc run amok with the puck. And Lidstrom played a supporting offense game as opposed to a creating offense game. He just did not need to play a creating offense game. They were stacked all over.

Coaches focused on stopping the Yzerman's and Fedorov's

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is an excellent point. Lidstrom was privileged enough to play on frequently star-studded teams that had numerous other high-quality defensive options that Bourque didn't have.

During his tenure in Detroit Lidstrom got to play alongside Hall of Famers like Fetisov, Chelios, and Murphy, in addition to all-stars like Chiasson, Konstantinov, and Rafalski. I can't even think of a single defender that Bourque got to play with on Boston's blue-line even remotely close to that kind of quality. Pre-Hartford Glen Wesley perhaps? Knee-less Gord Kluzak?

What is also being ignored is who the coaches were for these two players.

Lets see, Lidstrom had Scotty Bowman for 9 seasons. Babcock for 7. Bryan Murray for 3.

Bourque had Fred Creieghton, Gerry Cheevers, Butch Goring, Terry O'Reilly, Mike Milbury, Ric Bowness, Brian Sutter, Steve Kasper and Pat Burns. Cheevers 4.5 seasons was the longest stint.

So, on top of Detroit having a big advantage in talent, that's a huge advantage in coach. Especially in the playoffs where coaching becomes a bigger factor.

 

[Fugu]

No, the advantage coaches had was Lidstrom on their teams. Just ask them.

 

[Fredrik_71]

I haven't seen anyone post Lidström above Bourque on a personal top-10 list on this board with a few exceptions. With that said the poll asked for the best career and maybe Bourque would have had a better career if he played for the stacked Wings but he didn't.

I would have voted Bourque if the poll was "Who was the best d-man?". Now I voted Lids. I think I would have voted Coffey above Bourque also regarding career.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Lol.

Reasons supporting Bourque:

Pens were a dynasty

Lidstrom was fortunate to have Bryan Murray as a coach

Nieds, Pronger, Chara, and Blake arent in the same class as Leetch, Macinnis, Chelios and Coffey.


One thing that nobody seems to mention is that Lidstrom and his post-lockout peers were victimized by the strictest rule changes impacting defensemen, which were the reduction of the neutral zone, the elimination of the red line, and the zero tolerance water-ski hook/obstruction

If you watch Bourque, he made a habit of hooking players down the wing as he lost foot speed, and was never penalized for what was a legal play. He was also a benefactor of the smaller ice surface at the Garden. It came as no surprise that his ability to seal people off diminished when they moved to the Fleet Center. It took him several years to adjust to the bigger ice surface.

Lidstrom lost that luxury in 2003, but you would have never noticed since he simply made himself better positionally to never have to defend somebody illegally.

I just have to laugh at the idea that Bourque was better than Lidstrom positionally.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lol.

Reasons supporting Bourque:

Pens were a dynasty

Lidstrom was fortunate to have Bryan Murray as a coach

Nieds, Pronger, Chara, and Blake arent in the same class as Leetch, Macinnis, Chelios and Coffey.


One thing that nobody seems to mention is that Lidstrom and his post-lockout peers were victimized by the strictest rule changes impacting defensemen, which were the reduction of the neutral zone, the elimination of the red line, and the zero tolerance water-ski hook/obstruction

If you watch Bourque, he made a habit of hooking players down the wing as he lost foot speed, and was never penalized for what was a legal play. He was also a benefactor of the smaller ice surface at the Garden. It came as no surprise that his ability to seal people off diminished when they moved to the Fleet Center. It took him several years to adjust to the bigger ice surface.

Lidstrom lost that luxury in 2003, but you would have never noticed since he simply made himself better positionally to never have to defend somebody illegally.

I just have to laugh at the idea that Bourque was better than Lidstrom positionally.

What are you even going on about?
Who said Bourque was better positionally or one on one? No one did, sorry.

WHAT WAS SAID AND WHAT WAS PROVEN WAS...despite Lidstrom's defensive game, despite Bourque playing more in a higher scoring Era, Bourque was STILL better at keeping the puck out of his own net than Lidstrom was.
That Bourque's puck possession and ability to control a game was more effective defensively over-all than Lidstrom's defensive play was.

Like I said earlier, yell about it, laugh at it, deny it, I don't give a **** because it's simply a fact. Not opinion, not conjecture, not theory...fact!!!

 

[Pegi90*]

you seriously giving this much value to the points?

stevens was easily the best D-men defensively out of these and if that mattered more in norris votes and such, he would have needed alot bigger trophy case.

bourque is greatest of these, that's not even question. lidstrom had best career out of these due winning 4 cups + being part of most succesfull team of his era.

stevens and coffey, i would have rather had their career instead of ray's since cups are the thing.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

you seriously giving this much value to the points?

stevens was easily the best D-men defensively out of these and if that mattered more in norris votes and such, he would have needed alot bigger trophy case.

bourque is greatest of these, that's not even question. lidstrom had best career out of these due winning 4 cups + being part of most succesfull team of his era.

stevens and coffey, i would have rather had their career instead of ray's since cups are the thing.

Stevens' days in Washington get overlooked. The Murphy trade and Hatcher's emergence limited his opportunities but he was easily the leagues most feared dman are probably the most physical.

If I remember, Stevens was paired with Murphy at even strength and Hatcher on the PP. Hatcher and Langway were the 2nd pair/shutdown.

I also thought he should have won the Norris in 1994, and that he was unfairly judged because of a perception that the Devils were a dominant team because of Brodeur and the trap, and Stevens was just a piece of a puzzle. I thought he was easily the teams MVP.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

What are you even going on about?
Who said Bourque was better positionally or one on one? No one did, sorry.

WHAT WAS SAID AND WHAT WAS PROVEN WAS...despite Lidstrom's defensive game, despite Bourque playing more in a higher scoring Era, Bourque was STILL better at keeping the puck out of his own net than Lidstrom was.
That Bourque's puck possession and ability to control a game was more effective defensively over-all than Lidstrom's defensive play was.

Like I said earlier, yell about it, laugh at it, deny it, I don't give a **** because it's simply a fact. Not opinion, not conjecture, not theory...fact!!!

Where are those stats proving Bourque was better defensively?

Only stats we have are the ones showing Bourque had a bigger drop in playoff production than Lidstrom did. At least in comparison to the regular season.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No, the advantage coaches had was Lidstrom on their teams. Just ask them.

Yeah, that's it. Lidstrom made Scotty Bowman.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lol.

Reasons supporting Bourque:

Pens were a dynasty

Lidstrom was fortunate to have Bryan Murray as a coach

Nieds, Pronger, Chara, and Blake arent in the same class as Leetch, Macinnis, Chelios and Coffey.


One thing that nobody seems to mention is that Lidstrom and his post-lockout peers were victimized by the strictest rule changes impacting defensemen, which were the reduction of the neutral zone, the elimination of the red line, and the zero tolerance water-ski hook/obstruction

If you watch Bourque, he made a habit of hooking players down the wing as he lost foot speed, and was never penalized for what was a legal play. He was also a benefactor of the smaller ice surface at the Garden. It came as no surprise that his ability to seal people off diminished when they moved to the Fleet Center. It took him several years to adjust to the bigger ice surface.

Lidstrom lost that luxury in 2003, but you would have never noticed since he simply made himself better positionally to never have to defend somebody illegally.

I just have to laugh at the idea that Bourque was better than Lidstrom positionally.

16 years of Bowman and Babcock and you use Bryan Murray because he was their for 3 seasons.

Seems we are getting more and more posters that are here to simply prove themselves correct at all cost. Period.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I'm beginning to think that Bourque ran over GWOW's dog as a child. I'm not sure what else could explain his inexplicably irrational dismissal of Bourque's career and accomplishments.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

you seriously giving this much value to the points?

stevens was easily the best D-men defensively out of these and if that mattered more in norris votes and such, he would have needed alot bigger trophy case.

bourque is greatest of these, that's not even question. lidstrom had best career out of these due winning 4 cups + being part of most succesfull team of his era.

stevens and coffey, i would have rather had their career instead of ray's since cups are the thing.

Easily the best? Seriously?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I'm beginning to think that Bourque ran over GWOW's dog as a child. I'm not sure what else could explain his inexplicably irrational dismissal of Bourque's career and accomplishments.

Nothing personal.

I just watched 3/4 of his career and felt like he got a free pass when it came to the postseason.

If you're a superstar and an MVP in the regular season, you should replicate that production in the postseason.

Bourque was a great teammate, ambassador and leader, and he was loved in Boston. I think because of that, his decline in skills were overlooked and he was given a free pass a lot of nights.

While I agree some stars deserve Mulligans, I felt Bourque should have elevated his game in the postseason.

To his credit, he had some benchmark performances but I felt after 1990 he was pretty average for his standards.